The Russians test the Pak 38 and its PzGr 39

Discussions on the vehicles used by the Axis forces. Hosted by Christian Ankerstjerne
Peasant
Member
Posts: 542
Joined: 16 Oct 2018 17:21
Location: Italy

Re: The Russians test the Pak 38 and its PzGr 39

Post by Peasant » 25 Nov 2019 20:58

critical mass wrote:
25 Nov 2019 08:59
I think the differences are attributable to the different Charakter of the data and their reference in regard to performance.
Miles curves (Sollkurve and Abnahmebschusskurve) are minimum service acceptance references for service acceptance of armor plate. For a plate to be worse than the numbers, then the whole lot will have to be rejected (if failing retest). This by definition means that in general, acceptable plate quality such as procured for AFV armor is same or better than the reference. By how much is unknown.
The US data on the other hand are explorative trials, and record data as is obtained.
The two datasets are therefore not directly comparable.
Good point, I forgot to take this into account.

Remember our conversation about how the slope effect changes with striking velocity? Well I've found the same phenomena in the US data. While struggling to describe the behavior of the shell/armour at the full range of variables, with an acceptable margin of error, I've noticed that the K constants seem to form rough groups based on striking velocity, so I've divided the data in two groups, one for shots with between 2100-2600fps approx, and another between 2800-3150fps approx. and was able to narrow down the K for each to within +-5%.
There are some other aspects involved but I don’t know their actual effect yet. The nose shape at 0.8 t/D and high obliquely is irrelevant, as the projectile will effect base first penetration regularly at such acute angle. But larger cal projectiles require somewhat more energy for obtaining holing and perforation at high obliquity than smaller caliber projectiles. It’s not a big difference but it’s measurable. I have it in datasets for US 8in, 14in and 16in APCBC, in German navy APCBC and German 75mm and 88mm Army APCBC, and I strongly suspect that it’s true for 50mm vs 90mm, too. Perhaps worth investigating further.
Are you sure about this? Because, from what I know, the scaling effect works in completely opposite fashion, reducing the energy requirements with absolute size of the projectile/armour combination, according to this publication:

Image
source: https://apps.dtic.mil/docs/citations/ADA953510

critical mass
Member
Posts: 692
Joined: 13 Jun 2017 14:53
Location: central Europe

Re: The Russians test the Pak 38 and its PzGr 39

Post by critical mass » 26 Nov 2019 22:48

Good catch with the v dependent aspect in US data. I get the same observations.
There are some other aspects involved but I don’t know their actual effect yet. The nose shape at 0.8 t/D and high obliquely is irrelevant, as the projectile will effect base first penetration regularly at such acute angle. But larger cal projectiles require somewhat more energy for obtaining holing and perforation at high obliquity than smaller caliber projectiles. It’s not a big difference but it’s measurable. I have it in datasets for US 8in, 14in and 16in APCBC, in German navy APCBC and German 75mm and 88mm Army APCBC, and I strongly suspect that it’s true for 50mm vs 90mm, too. Perhaps worth investigating further.


Are you sure about this? Because, from what I know, the scaling effect works in completely opposite fashion, reducing the energy requirements with absolute size of the projectile/armour combination, according to this publication:
Yes. I am reasonably sure about this. What You describe is Positive scaling and it is a long since established knowledge. From the first time, the De Marre formula was used to assess plate quality in nickel steel armor of the late 1880s, this effect was recorded. However, this sort of scaling, where an increase in projectile diameter reduces the relative amounts of energy needed to effect holing only prevails in low obliquity conditions. Which is correct, because most of the testing done in the first 50 years of that formula was limited to normal impact. Even Nathan Okun used a scaling formula derived from 0deg impact like the old Thompson formula, and it didn’t change with obliquity, He used the fairly detailed g.Kdos100 graphs for establishing a correlation between scaling and %el.
A couple of years ago, I recognized in the same data, that the scaling is not constant over obliquities, as implied in Okuns older formulas, but the scaling drops with increased obliquity and in high obliquity becomes inverse, I.e. the larger cal projectile requires more energy to effect holing of the same t/d Ratio than a smaller cal.
I wasn’t the first to notice this effect, though. The oldest precise reference is to be found in that the US NPG Indean Head already tentatively described the possibility of the effect in O.P.8, 1923.
However, from my personal communication with Nathan Okun, he reviewed my arguments and corrected his assumption of scaling towards a scaling in relation to obliquity. So it is more complex than previously assumed causing partially opposing relations. While lower v prefers the larger and heavier projectile, a high obliquity also favours a smaller projectile. A can of worms.
Notice, that all this assumes ductile holing events and relatively intact perforators.

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/warship ... 1-s40.html
(The initial discussion. I used a different pseudonym here)

Peasant
Member
Posts: 542
Joined: 16 Oct 2018 17:21
Location: Italy

Re: The Russians test the Pak 38 and its PzGr 39

Post by Peasant » 12 Dec 2019 17:39

In order to be absolutely sure about the exact mass of 5cm PzGr.39 projectile without its cap, I've compared it with the 5cm PzGr.:
5cm PzGr.
5cm PzGr.39
Both projectiles have the same designs of the base, the explosive cavity and the nose. The only difference, besides the added penetrating cap, is the length of the body, one being 9,2mm shorter than the other. The extra material is a solid cylindrical section, just behind the bourlet.
A solid cylinder of steel, 9,2mm high and 49,8mm in diameter would weight about 140g.
2060g - 140g = 1920g, extremely close to the number we already saw. :D

Peasant
Member
Posts: 542
Joined: 16 Oct 2018 17:21
Location: Italy

Re: The Russians test the Pak 38 and its PzGr 39

Post by Peasant » 08 Feb 2020 21:06

I've decided to try out my latest iteration of terminal ballistic formula and estimate the performance of soviet HHA at moderate-to-high obliquity. Using the numbers provided my Miles in the first post of this thread as a reference, I've fitted my model to get the closest match.

Image

It is interesting to note that both T-70's UFP(35mm/60°) and the SU-122/SU-85(45mm/50°) provide equivalent protection, just about enough to be nominaly immune to the German short 5cm L/42 gun at 100m.

User avatar
Mobius
Member
Posts: 619
Joined: 12 Jan 2005 20:45
Location: Glendale, CA

Re: The Russians test the Pak 38 and its PzGr 39

Post by Mobius » 28 Feb 2020 15:34

Peasant wrote:
12 Dec 2019 17:39
In order to be absolutely sure about the exact mass of 5cm PzGr.39 projectile without its cap, I've compared it with the 5cm PzGr.:
5cm PzGr.
5cm PzGr.39
Both projectiles have the same designs of the base, the explosive cavity and the nose. The only difference, besides the added penetrating cap, is the length of the body, one being 9,2mm shorter than the other. The extra material is a solid cylindrical section, just behind the bourlet.
A solid cylinder of steel, 9,2mm high and 49,8mm in diameter would weight about 140g.
2060g - 140g = 1920g, extremely close to the number we already saw. :D
That cap shape may make a very slight difference in terminal velocity.
This is possible comparison AP and APC
VELOCITY VS RANGE DATA FOR GERMAN AP & APC
RANGE____5cmL60_____5cmL60(39).
0m________835________835
100m______809________809
200m______ 783_______783
500m______707________706
800m______636________634
1000m_____591________590
1500m_____491________489
Weight 2.06

According to Christian's post this is for both Pzgr. and Pzgr. 39.
H. Dv. 119/313.
0m 835 m/s
200 m: 783 m/s
500 m: 707 m/s
1000 m: 591 m/s
1500 m: 491 m/s
It might be originally for Pzgr.
In other shells like the US 37mm and UK 6pdr there were small differences in the striking values between the AP and APC shot. But there are differences.

Peasant
Member
Posts: 542
Joined: 16 Oct 2018 17:21
Location: Italy

Re: The Russians test the Pak 38 and its PzGr 39

Post by Peasant » 28 Feb 2020 19:04

Mobius wrote:
28 Feb 2020 15:34
In other shells like the US 37mm and UK 6pdr there were small differences in the striking values between the AP and APC shot. But there are differences.
Indeed there are. Which is not surprising, given how different are the external shapes of a normal and capped shells, but rather how small the difference often is. Perhaps, because the central area of the cap is more flat while the edges are more angled they mostly cancel each other out and give the ballistic profile extremely close to that of the uncapped shell of the same mass. I do not doubt for a moment that this is not a coincidence but a deliberate design with the goal of keeping the firing tables and the sight reticles interchangeable between both types of shells.

Peasant
Member
Posts: 542
Joined: 16 Oct 2018 17:21
Location: Italy

Re: The Russians test the Pak 38 and its PzGr 39

Post by Peasant » 01 Apr 2020 20:35

critical mass wrote:
26 Nov 2019 22:48
I was working on perfecting my terminal ballistic model for APC shells and I've tried estimating the PTP limit for 5cm Pzgr.39 against 75mm RHA plate of 316BHN at normal impact. I've got, approximately, about 660m/s, very close to the critical velocity for the "flawed" plate we've discussed earlier in this thread.
At the same time this shell failed to defeat this allegedly, weakened plate at 30° at p.b.

So maybe it was not flawed in the first place? Maybe the person responsible for compiling the data had a mix up and wrote "armour piercing shell w/o cap" instead of "armour piercing shell w/ cap"?
This would explain the disparity between its 0° and 30° performance, as it was rated to defeat only up to 70mm/30° of 105-115kg/mm^2 german RHA, and probably broke up against the thicker plate.
Mobius wrote:
01 Apr 2020 21:14
Remember the table in Lilienthalgesellschaft-1943 that shows the 5,0 cm AP has a different curve than the pzgr 39.
Mobius, it hurts to think that you believe me capable of such rookie mistake. :D Of course this data is for the 5cm Pzgr.39, the capped AP shell. I dont have any other testing data for this shell at 0°, but the BIOS Final Report no.1343, reports that german shells can be expected to defeat 1,23 times the thickness defeated at 30° at normal impact, so 75mm vertical should be equivalent to 61mm/30°. The G(d) for 61mm/30° look like about 725m/s and the G(s), the safety limit is 0,92*725 = 667m/s, very close to my estimates.
Last edited by Peasant on 01 Apr 2020 22:14, edited 3 times in total.

User avatar
Mobius
Member
Posts: 619
Joined: 12 Jan 2005 20:45
Location: Glendale, CA

Re: The Russians test the Pak 38 and its PzGr 39

Post by Mobius » 01 Apr 2020 21:14

Peasant wrote:
01 Apr 2020 20:35
critical mass wrote:
26 Nov 2019 22:48
I was working on perfecting my terminal ballistic model for APC shells and I've tried estimating the PTP limit for 5cm Pzgr.39 against 75mm RHA plate of 316BHN at normal impact. I've got, approximately, about 660m/s, very close to the critical velocity for the "flawed" plate we've discussed earlier in this thread.
At the same time this shell failed to defeat this allegedly, weakened plate at 30° at p.b.

So maybe it was not flawed in the first place? Maybe the person responsible for compiling the data had a mix up and wrote "armour piercing shell w/o cap" instead of "armour piercing shell w/ cap"?
This would explain the disparity between its 0° and 30° performance, as it was rated to defeat only up to 70mm/30° of 105-115kg/mm^2 german RHA, and probably broke up against the thicker plate.
Remember the table in Lilienthalgesellschaft-1943 that shows the 5,0 cm AP has a different curve than the pzgr 39.

critical mass
Member
Posts: 692
Joined: 13 Jun 2017 14:53
Location: central Europe

Re: The Russians test the Pak 38 and its PzGr 39

Post by critical mass » 04 Apr 2020 11:17

Peasant wrote:
01 Apr 2020 20:35
critical mass wrote:
26 Nov 2019 22:48
I was working on perfecting my terminal ballistic model for APC shells and I've tried estimating the PTP limit for 5cm Pzgr.39 against 75mm RHA plate of 316BHN at normal impact. I've got, approximately, about 660m/s, very close to the critical velocity for the "flawed" plate we've discussed earlier in this thread.
At the same time this shell failed to defeat this allegedly, weakened plate at 30° at p.b.

So maybe it was not flawed in the first place? Maybe the person responsible for compiling the data had a mix up and wrote "armour piercing shell w/o cap" instead of "armour piercing shell w/ cap"?
This would explain the disparity between its 0° and 30° performance, as it was rated to defeat only up to 70mm/30° of 105-115kg/mm^2 german RHA, and probably broke up against the thicker plate.
That´s a possibility worth to exploring more.

Peasant
Member
Posts: 542
Joined: 16 Oct 2018 17:21
Location: Italy

Re: The Russians test the Pak 38 and its PzGr 39

Post by Peasant » 24 May 2020 23:53

Made this, thought I'd share it in this thread:

Explanation: Because an AP shell is much more likely to stay intact when striking at close to 90° angle, the more accurate numbers are obtained by estimating its 0° performance from its projected 30° performance, not the actual reported.

Image

Peasant
Member
Posts: 542
Joined: 16 Oct 2018 17:21
Location: Italy

Re: The Russians test the Pak 38 and its PzGr 39

Post by Peasant » 21 Jul 2020 19:36

Using the model described here, I've estimated the performance at obliquity of the 5cm PzGr.39 shell.

Comparing them to the figures obtained by the soviets, we can see that it successfully predicted that 60mm of medium hardness becomes immune at 100m between 45-50° of tilt while, just as expected, the 60mm HHA plate is inferior under these conditions.

If T-34 was made with MQ RHA 56° of tilt on its UFP would suffice to be immune against this shell.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Peasant
Member
Posts: 542
Joined: 16 Oct 2018 17:21
Location: Italy

Re: The Russians test the Pak 38 and its PzGr 39

Post by Peasant » 23 Jul 2020 15:52

From Rexford posted here: http://community.battlefront.com/topic/ ... t34-armor/
During May 1942, the Germans duplicated T34 armor in 40mm through 53mm plates and fired 37mm L45 and 50mm L60 rounds at the armor (100m range). Following is summary of 50mm L60 results:

40.5mm at 40°, 3 penetrations, 2 failures

Since all the hits should have succeeded, something odd occurred. May be shatter gap, may be cracked rounds. Sure penetrations turn into 40% failure rate.

52mm at 55°, 4 failures

46mm at 60°, 1 penetration, 3 failures

German combat experience showed that 50mm ATG could penetrate T34 glacis at 100m if everything was in favor of round

52mm at 61°, 4 failures

47mm at 64.5°, 3 failures

43mm at 65°, 1 success, 2 failures

This supports occasional penetration of T34 glacis if everything is just right

Based on analysis of the above data, T34 high hardness armor appears to be less resistant than good quality medium hardness plate (quality is less than 1.00 against 50mm hits).

Above summary thicknesses are averages, actual thicknesses at each angle varied.
Here is the May 1942 German data for 37mm ATG against T34 armor using AP rounds at 100m:

40.6mm plate: shots at 40° and above would not cause a crack on inside of plate (sicher criteria, similar to U.S. Army Ballistic Limit)

45.8mm plate: shots at 21°and above do not cause through the plate cracks

47.7mm plate: shots at 15° and above cause no through cracking

51.9mm plate: hits above 10.5° cause no cracks through plate

Combat stories indicating that 37mm ATG AP penetrated 45mm at 40° T34 side at 300m range appear highly questionable when they are compared to above firing trial results.

Peasant
Member
Posts: 542
Joined: 16 Oct 2018 17:21
Location: Italy

Re: The Russians test the Pak 38 and its PzGr 39

Post by Peasant » 08 Aug 2020 12:55

I've put together an attempt to create a consistent model of how soviet medium hardness RHA responds to an attack from 3.7cm AP/APCR. Might be useful for getting a full picture of how effective this gun was against T-28 and other thinly armored early war tanks.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Peasant
Member
Posts: 542
Joined: 16 Oct 2018 17:21
Location: Italy

Re: The Russians test the Pak 38 and its PzGr 39

Post by Peasant » 05 Sep 2020 11:14

Interesting to note that while the british RHA looses its resistance rapidly when tempered to high hardness levels, the soviet 8C steel shows resistance to perforation similar to that of the RHA of the more conventional hardness levels, at least for angles of impact of and over 30°.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Peasant
Member
Posts: 542
Joined: 16 Oct 2018 17:21
Location: Italy

Re: The Russians test the Pak 38 and its PzGr 39

Post by Peasant » 22 Sep 2020 19:10

I would like to point out how effective the soviet HHA is against subcaliber shells. I've made this chart to illustrate my point.
This data also suggests that despite being capable of defeating 122mm/30° at 100m of 90kg/mm^2 RHA, the 5cm Pak 38 firing APCR can only deal with 80-85mm of HHA under same conditions, making the JS-1/2 tanks lower nose almost immune to such attack.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Return to “The Ron Klages Panzer & other vehicles Section”